Terms of Revilement

Making a Killing,
which
may be the most influential anti-gun book ever written, could not
have been better timed to the current wave of lawsuits against gun
companies, since many of the claims in the suits closely resemble the charges
that Tom Diaz presents against the gun industry. Moreover, the book will
help shape public opinion about the gun issue in general and gun
companies in particular, thereby reducing the prospect that
state legislatures or Congress will enact legislation to prohibit the
lawsuits.

Yet Diaz's work will also be of interest to
persons who are not much interested in do not care about the gun issue. Making a
Killing, for one thing, is the first book to analyze the American firearms industry,
previous ones having concentrated on a
single company (e.g., Winchester), its products, and the evolution of firearms design, rather than on the
business decisions faced by company leaders. For another, this book will
be of interest to political scientists as an example of changing styles of political rhetoric
and, in
particular, for the important step that Making a Killing represents in the tactics
of gun control advocates. In the past, the debate has been over “gun
control”—a term which resonates very negatively with a large segment of
the voting public. (Americans do not like being "controlled.") The "gun
control" debate has been about restrictions on gun possession by
law‑abiding citizens, and about whether these restrictions can reduce
misuse of guns both by law‑abiding citizens and by criminals. Yet the very terms of the debate,
serving as they do to remind people that gun crime is caused by
criminals with guns, put gun-prohibition advocates such as Diaz at a
disadvantage. Moreover, the fundamental premise of the
gun control movement‑‑that the average American citizen lacks the
maturity, intelligence, and emotional stability to possess a handgun and
to use it for personal protection‑‑has not proved very popular.
Thus, in recent years, advocates of gun
prohibition have begun to shift the emphasis of the debate away from gun
crimes toward "protecting the children": a rhetorical device
intended to promote the same controls they advocated previously. And when a loaded
phrase like "the children" is
coupled rhetorically with "gun safety" (people who react badly
to "control" may respond favorably to "safety"), the tactical advantage
becomes all the greater.

Diaz’s book seeks to change
the moral thrust of the anti-gun argument: “Gun manufacturers are evil and therefore the government
should regulate their products.” Making a Killing
presents what Diaz considers an exposé of the sins of the firearms
business--among them its profit motivation in wanting to sell more
and more guns. If, however,
firearms are a legitimate consumer product (and American law very
clearly says that they are), then making a profit by manufacturing guns is no
more
immoral than making a living by selling books. Diaz asserts that the
firearms industry enjoys “incredible profitability” but he neglects to provide
serious evidence. Instead, he shows that Bill Ruger, the
founder of one of America's most successful gun companies, is personally
wealthy, and belongs to some fancy clubs, and repeats--three times!--a 1959
statement by Bill Ruger: “We have a little moneymaking machine here.”

The implication is that the rest of the
American gun business is as profitable as Ruger, which is simply not the
case.
Ruger is the only firearms company which is publicly traded, from which
we might infer that other firearms companies did not believe that they
were profitable enough to be taken public. [Correction: Smith & Wesson
is also publicly traded.] Indeed, as anyone who knows anything about
the industry knows, the gun companies as financially
healthy as Ruger are few and far between. Colt, the most venerable name
in American firearms, has survived bankruptcy only because of corporate
welfare from the state of Connecticut and from the federal government
(in the form of research grants to invent a
“smart gun” which can only be fired by its owner). Significantly, lawsuits filed against
handgun companies are predicated on the common knowledge that hardly any
of the companies have enough money to pay the costs of legal defense in
over two dozen courtrooms.

The heart of Making a Killing is
an analysis of changes in the handgun market over recent decades.
As of 1974,the majority of handguns sold in the U.S. were
revolvers. Today, the majority are self‑loading pistols.
Indignantly, Diaz describes how the American firearms
industry, in recent decades, has attempted to deal with the problem of market saturation (i.e., most men who want to own gun already own a gun)
in the
way any rational industry would--by trying to sell its product to people who do
not currently own it and to sell new products to people who already do.
Gun manufacturers have implemented the first strategy by pitching firearms
to women and by promoting youth interest in the shooting sports.
This program for market expansion is heartily
disapproved of by Diaz., who appears not to like anything that people do with guns. He
bashes not only ownership of handguns for self-defense, but sports such
as Cowboy Action Shooting. He criticizes American shooting ranges which cater to
foreign tourists are for seeking to satisfy something he calls “gun lust.”

Diaz regards the shift from revolvers to
self-loaders as a result of pernicious advertising touting “firepower” as the dubious advantage of the new pistols. He overestimates the role of advertising. Ads obviously
affects consumer decisions; otherwise companies would not bother to
advertise. Whether advertising can create and sustain demand for a
product type which, in the absence of advertising, consumers would not
want, is questionable. To acknowledge this
point would be to put the blame for increased firepower on the consumer,
rather than on the gun manufacturer. And this in turn would move the gun
debate back to the “gun control” paradigm, with its associated political perils
of criticizing tens of millions of consumers, rather than a
few dozen handgun companies.

Despite what Diaz implies, for many
decades gun companies have offered consumers a choice between revolvers
and self-loading pistols. The self-loading mechanism was invented in the
late 1890's; the best-known American firearms model--the “Colt .45”, a self-loading
handgun--was first sold in 1911. The “high-capacity” pistol been
available to consumers at least since 1935 with the introduction of
the 13 shot Browning Hi Power. Before the 1980's, moreover, in that allegedly
golden era when revolvers outsold self-loading pistols, firearms
manufacturers worked just as hard to sell as many revolvers and pistols
as they could. That the companies sold more shotguns or revolvers than
pistols was the simple result of consumers being more interested in
shotguns and revolvers. Clearly, changes in consumer preferences 1959 to 1999 are
the result of consumer decisions, not of a publicity scam waged against consumers by
gun companies.

Along with the complaints about an
industry‑driven shift in handgun type come diatribes against
more powerful ammunition. These is nonsense, and Diaz's propagation of
them undercuts his claim
to be a former "gun nut." The most popular type of ammunition for modem
self‑loaders is 9mm. This ammunition is not new (it was invented in 1895
George Luger) nor is it more powerful than revolver ammunition; in fact,
9mm happens to be the same size as that for the "old‑fashioned"
.38 Special revolver. The most powerful handgun ammunition in common use is
the .44 magnum, which is for revolvers, not pistols.

Diaz, who considers the gun industry evil
for selling guns that are too big, considers it as well for marketing
others that are too
small. There have been increased sales of small
guns in the 1990's. But consumers who want small guns have had them
available since 1852, when Henry Deringer patented his first gun.
Indeed, “Derringer” became a generic (and misspelled) named for
literally hundreds of brands of small handguns which achieved mass
consumer popularity as urban defense weapons in the 1880's and 1890's.
The fact that sales of these guns waned, relative to the rest of the handgun
market, between 1890 and 1990 tells us more about consumer behavior than
it does about gun companies forcing products on consumers. And that small
handguns in 1999 can fire larger bullets than their 1899 ancestors tells
us only that metallurgy has improved in the last century.

A second cause of increased popularity
for small handguns was President Clinton, who in 1994
successfully fought for a crime bill banning the manufacture of new
magazines holding more than 10rounds. This design restriction inevitably
led gun consumers and gun designers to express greater interest in
handguns which hold ten rounds are less. Of course, the lower the ammunition
capacity, the smaller the gun can be. Some companies, such as Kahr, were
introducing new small handgun designs even before the Clinton crime bill
passed, but unquestionably the Clinton ban accelerated a trend.
The legislation also helped spur a massive backlash 1994 general
elections. The result was not only a Republican-controlled Congress but enormous “pro-gun” gains in state legislatures and
governors' mansions. The tidal wave of legislation that followed in the
next year gave America 31 states in which ordinary law-abiding adult who pass a
background check and (in most states) attend a safety class may obtain a
permit to carry concealed handgun for their lawful protection. No wonder small handgun sales are
rising. Like most professionals in the gun
control lobbies, Diaz nowhere acknowledges the morality of defensive
firearms ownership.

Diaz concludes by calling
for a federal agency to be given the authority to regulate firearms
design. The agency would have the power to "phase out"
handguns, which Diaz has elsewhere said would eventually mean handgun
confiscation with compensation paid to the owners. This section of the
book would be stronger if it addressed some of the potential problems
with the proposal. Even if we skip over the constitutional objections,
what about the tremendous enforcement and black market problems? The
federal government once outlawed alcohol, and now outlaws various drugs,
in the name of consumer safety. Whatever one thinks about the
cost/benefit result of these prohibitions, the costs (both in dollars
and in diminished constitutional rights) have been enormous. At least a short discussion of the
similar costs which would arise from handguns prohibition seems in
order.

Making a Killing
is already making a major contribution to the American gun policy
debate. The book will be
appreciated by people already share Diaz’s premise about the immorality of
making guns and sales to people for their own self-defense. (One such reader calls the book “An astonishing picture of depraved
indifference that will leave you gape-mouthed.”) It will not be
convincing, however, to readers who do not start with Diaz’s premises,
particularly if the they have some independent knowledge of firearms,
firearms policy, or the firearms business. The self-righteous moral
indignation (based upon moral principles that are very far from
universal) detracts from the book, as does Diaz’s unwillingness to say
anything positive about the firearms industry, and his insistence on
imputing wicked motives to everything the industry does. It is
unfortunate that Tom Diaz has seen fit to overlay the rhetoric of moral panic on
the results of his large and serious research about an important American
commercial enterprise.

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional
rights and public safety.

Nothing written here is to be construed as
necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an
attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send
comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone 303-279-6536. (email)webmngr @ i2i.org